IMPASSE OVER INDIES

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 21945, 13 February 1946, Page 5

IMPASSE OVER INDIES

SECURITY COUNCIL’S DEBATE

UKRAINE’S DEMAND FOR VOTE

EGYPT SUGGESTS ALTERNATIVE PLAN (11.30 a.ra.) LONDON, Feb. 12. The Indonesian problem in relation to the presence of British troops there is still unsolved after yet a further day’s session of the Security Council of the United Nations’ Organisation. The council is to again consider the subject to-morrow night, and the solution should be forthcoming, judging from the trend of to-night’s meeting. As a deadlock seemed to he inevitable, the French delegate, M. Bidault, moved that the matter should be closed with a statement by the chairman on the same lines as the Greek disagreement was settled. The Ukrainian delegate, M. Manuilsky, objected to this, saying that his Government insisted on a vote on the resolution advanced by them. The president was about to start counting votes, which almost certainly would have gone in favour of Britain, as six of the 11 delegates had expressed their countries as opposed to sending a Commission to Indonesia, when the Egyptian delegate moved that there was no need for a Commission but that the Security Council would be satisfied with a guarantee that British troops would not be used against the Indonesians. This will he the motion which the council will discuss when it meets to-morrow night.

The chairman, Mr. M. J. Makin (Australia) opposed the appointment of a commission on the ground that M. Manuilski had not established, the charge that there was a threat to international peace and order. Mr. Makin questioned whether the Ukraine had the right to make a proposition. His view was that as a non-member of the council the Ukraine had the right to participate but not to vote, and it was for the council to decide. M Manuilski referred to Mr. Ernest Bevin’s statement that the Ukrainian letter constituted interference in the Netherlands’ internal affairs. M. Manuilski went on to say that he could not accept this, because .military intervention had taken place in Indonesia. which was contrary to the Charter and international law. ‘‘Dangerous Precedent” It was not a question which fell within the competence of the Netherlands Government. M. Manuilski alleged that Japanese troops were used against the Indonesians. He added that in no international document would any provision be made allowing the use of enemy troops against the people of an occupied country. “The precedent is a very dangerous one,” he said. “We are making a mercenary army of enemy troops and using them against a people which resisted aggression. “The Netherlands delegate has proposed that the Security Council should desist from interference in this affair, which should be dealt with by the Netherlands Government,” he continued. “Nevertheless, I say that war is war and if the Security Council desists here, I ask you in what cause will it think fit to intervene at some other date?”

M. Manuilsky recalled the experience of the League of Nations and emphasised that the League had decided not to intervene in the Spanish civil war—and two years later the World War broke out.

Chairman’s Objection

M. Manuilski then reiterated his proposal for a commission to visit Indonesia, and Mr. Makin put in the objection as given above. Mr. Makin put to the Council the question whether it was agreed in procedure that the Ukrainian delegate r proposal should be accepted. M. Vyshinsky said that the articles of the Charter did not provide a solution to the problem of procedure which they were now discussing. “Where there is no text, let us use logic and common sense,’’ he said. M. Manuilski had been invited by the Council to make a statement and the Council should not prevent him from offerin'* a solution to the problem to which he had drawn attention. , Mr. E. Stettinius (America) contended that any formal resolution could be put forward by a member of +he Council. They could take note. of the Ukrainian delegate's suggestion and continue the discussion. M van Kleffens (Netherlands) said he would like to move himself that M. Manuilski should be given the opportunity—he did not say right—to make bis proposition. U.S. Proposition Withdrawn

Mr. Stettinius said: “Having listened to the discussions and, without prejudice to the future, I withdraw my objection in order that we can get on with the examination of the question before us without wasting time on technical matters.”

M. Vyshinsky then asked that it be placed on record that the proposal emanated not only from the Netherlands but from France, Egypt, China, Russia and Poland, and also that the United States delegate had withdrawn his proposition. Mr Stettinius said that any investigation such as was called for by the Ukraine was unwarranted. Mr Stettinius said: “I withdraw my objection without prejudice to our future position.” The council then agreed unanimously to consider the Ukranian proposal. Mr Makin, speaking as a delegate for Australia, said that in the opinion of his delegation it would be frequently unwise for the Security Council to try to make a decision on the merits of a dispute brought before it immediately after hearing statements and counterstatements by the parties. Australian Attitude

His Government had no objection in principle to the appointment of committees of inquiry in cases brought before the council which were substantial and which, under the provisions of the Charter, it was appropriate to investi-

tigate. His Government would welconn the establishment of such committee! and would like to participate in them, particularly where Australia is interested. Mr Makin pointed out that it was admitted that British troops went tc Indonesia for legitimate reasons and no one was asking for their withdrawal. Could it be said under these circumstances that the Ukraine’s representative had established the charge that there was a danger to international peace and security? Mr Makin said that if he were asked whether the action of the British troops threatened international peace and security and warranted the council taking action under Article 34 of the Charter he would be bound to answer definitely, “No." Mr Makin said that if the parties concerned had wanted a committee oi inquiry Australia would not have fell obliged to object, but she would have asked, in view of her geographical position that she should be associated with the work of the committee. Investigation Not Needed

Mr Stettinius said: “The United States does not want to diminish the council’s investigating power, but the right to investigate is so important that it should not be undertaken lightly. No one questions that the presence of the British troops in Indonesia is justified. No one asks for their withdrawal. I don’i believe any investigation is called for on this score.” Mr Stettinius said he was sure it was the wish of all members of the Security Council that negatiations between the Netherlands Government and the Indonesians would be successful. He thought it would be a serious responsibility on the council to take any action which mirht prejudice or retard the conduct of the negotiations. It was appropriate to express the hope that the terms of surrender requiring the disarmament of the Japanese might be carried out promptly and the disturbing influence of the Japanese in Indonesia eliminated. ' Dr Wellington Koo (China) said there were 2,000,000 Chinese in the Netherland East Indies, most of whom were in Java. They had shared with the Indonesians the hardships of the Japanese occupation. The Chinese appreciated the succour and protection which the British troops in Java had been able to extend to Chinese nationals. No Insistence On Inquiry He added that the Chinese felt deep sympathy for the Indonesians, but in the light of the statements regarding the purpose of the British troops in Indonesia and the assurance given by the Netherlands Government, the Chinese delegation thought the discussion might be abandoned. The Chinese delegation did not insist on an inquiry in the present case. The council adjourned until to-mor-row.

The Australian Associated Press correspondent says that even M. Manuilski’s formal proposal for a commission to go to Indonesia to investigate his charges arising from the presence of British troops there and the subsequent contributions to the debate by Mr Makin. Mr Stettinius and Dr Wellington Koo seemingly have not hastened the end of the Security Council’s debate on the question. It is apparent that members of the council now want to speak to a formal motion for a commission on much the same lines as they have already spoken on the substance of M. Manuilski’s charge.